Three Great Acoustic Performances

As I’ve been working tonight, I’ve been listening to three performers on YouTube – Stefani Germanotta, Justin Timberlake, and Adele – perform live acoustic versions of some of their songs. It makes me wonder why the music industry is in such disarray. The business would be far healthier if people like this were left alone to compose, perform, and release music from their own homes or studios. It just isn’t necessary to have huge productions when you’re talented; the smoke and mirrors are only required when you are trying to hide something.

A few years ago, a young songwriter named Stefani Germanotta performed at Ultraviolet Live, NYU’s annual talent show. You know her now as Lady Gaga. But this is what she looks, and sounds like, if she were to walk into your living room, sit down at your piano, and perform as a person rather than an act. She really is extraordinarily talented. Just as I prefer Elton John now to his on-stage antics of the 1970’s, I vastly prefer the “real” woman to the persona. She should release an acoustic album.

Then, you get to Another Song (All Over Again) but Justin Timberlake. He has come so far since the boy band days. The composition; the performance … the talent really is evident. It’s just great music.

Finally, you get to embodiment of raw talent herself, Adele. Acoustic. On a rooftop. No production values. And she still kicks every other singer across the stage with a song she penned herself. She is the real thing.

I disagree – I believe that artists choose to adopt titles, pseudonyms, and symbols because they are consistent. Stefani Germanotta is overflowing with talent, but she can still get sick, she suffers from human fallacies and vexations, and one day she will grow old and die. Lady Gaga, on the other hand, will forevermore be quirky, outrageous, and larger-than-life. It’s like in the Mask of Zorro, when the old retired dude hands off his mask to the new vigilante. The person behind the mask is merely human, but to everyone else, the values that the mask of Zorro represents didn’t change when the mask switched hands.

The music industry is here to formulate and perpetuate symbols. It’s like a brand name – Coca-Cola has changed formulations throughout its 125-year history, but the symbol has never lost its potency. And just like Coca-Cola will most likely defeat or acquire new, promising soft drinks, the music industry will probably out-compete or “acquire” independent artists who don’t have the connections or massive capital reserves.

Joshua Kennon

I understand that and it was certainly true throughout the 20th century but I look at it this way: The only way the music industry is able to have the power it does is through its control of distribution channels. With the rise of digital content distribution and the ability for nearly anyone to release their own goods, you can see an almost mirror image decline in the traditional business models of newspapers, pornography studios, record labels, publishing houses, and even some magazines. Also, brand symbols built around people were possible in the 1950’s before the age of ubiquitous cell phone cameras and online publish-to-YouTube-with-a-press-of-the-screen.

It’s entirely possible I’m wrong. Maybe you’ll turn out to be right. Looking at the current market layout, I’d bet on two outcomes:

1.) Gimmicks work for a short period of time but authenticity wins in the end. This is the result of an on-going 24/7 media culture that will make it impossible to keep up a facade for very long.

2.) Technology is reaching a point of creative disruption where a winner-take-all system results in content creators who are successful capturing most, if not all, of the fruits of their work, with a handful of “toll bridge” companies, such as Apple through its iTunes platform or Amazon through its Kindle network, earning very high returns relative to capital deployed. The perfect example is the YouTube video “David After the Dentist”. The father who published the viral hit of his son after a trip to the dentist still experiencing the effects of the drugs has already made $100,000 in profit from the advertising revenue simply by throwing up some Google code and making it available for license to television shows and other outlets.

Will there always be a music industry? Certainly. But I think it will never again have the access, scope, power, and prestige that it did. Instead, I think the ultimate business model 10 or 20 years out is going to be on individual artists who own and release their own material. I think the technology is changing the landscape so quickly that no artist in his or her right mind would agree to get paid only 10% to 20% of the royalties on record sales. Why, when you can easily keep 65% to 70%?

This isn’t limited to music. Take writing. In my own case, I’m only 29 but my lifetime career earnings from copyright royalties, which I do as a part-time hobby, are far above what the average person makes at a regular day job throughout his life. I don’t have to go through Gate Keepers to get my content out there; I own the means of production and the distribution channels (in the case of The New York Times / About.com, there is a mutually beneficially licensing agreement in place based upon performance). There are some individual articles that have generated tens of thousands of dollars for me, and continue to churn out cash each year, that had I gone with the old model and sold on a per-piece basis (e.g., $10 per article, $50 per article, or $100 per article, or so much per word), I’d have allowed all earnings to flow to someone else. That’s the old model. There is no reason to do it anymore. It’s just not worth it.

But, again: Who knows? Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe people will continue to doubt themselves and sign over the rights to their works, allowing the edifices of the old complexes to remain in place. Heaven knows the airline industry has managed to survive despite everyone but Southwest being an economic failure (strategically valuable to the country, yes, but from an owner-viewpoint).

Gilvus

Okay, I see what you mean about human brands falling eventually. Unless it’s a clothing designer.

The problem I see here is because everyone has the opportunity to create their own work, the market will be flooded with people competing among themselves to get the most subscribers/likes/followers. This allows people with lots of capital (music moguls) to hand-pick and promote artists with high-capital tactics that haven’t be hurt by the Internet: concerts, radio play, advertising, etc.

You’re definitely right about music distribution shifting from CDs to the artists themselves. But I can see the music industry snatching up synthetic equity in new artists just like how the App store holds synthetic equity in Angry Birds. And unlike other forms of synthetic equity, they can demand a much higher percentage of gross revenue because there’s a surplus of other artists hoping to “make it big.”

Joshua Kennon

I can see the music industry snatching up synthetic equity in new artists just like how the App store holds synthetic equity in Angry Birds. And unlike other forms of synthetic equity, they can demand a much higher percentage of gross revenue because there’s a surplus of other artists hoping to “make it big.”

That is a very possible outcome. If you can figure out who owns the synthetic equity and buy a stake in it at a reasonable price, you can make a lot of money.

Gilvus

That’d be nice, but I need to learn how to calculate that “reasonable price” first. I’m sitting here with a copy of Security Analysis, trying to figure out if GM is a steal or if I’m just stupid.

Chris Falkner

Your Justin Timberlake video is no longer available. Here is a link to one still on youtube.http://youtu.be/NipABdzg8vY Great post I enjoyed it.

Browse Articles by Category

Browse Articles By Date

Most Recent Posts

Hmm …. Joshua, Countries such as Germany and Spain make homeschooling illegal, putting the kids before the parents. Other countries, such as Italy, consider it a fundamental right and guarantee it in the constitution, putting the parents before the kids. Which do you think is right? Iya This is one of those things that remains […]

Earlier tonight, I published a piece called The Best Stocks To Buy Are Historically Found in a Handful of Industries over at About.com, which at around 3,000+ words, examined the research we discussed recently out of Wharton that looked at the original S&P 500 components in the 50 years following their establishment in 1957 and the […]

Get ready to add yet another secret millionaire to your case study files. Ronald Read passed away last June at 92 years old. The Brattleboro, Vermont man, who had no college education and drove a Toyota Yaris, always made a point of living below his means. He spent many years working as a gas station attendant and […]

I’ve written about the fact that very few American families invest in stock directly. For every 100 families in the United States, only 15.1 hold shares outright, rather than through a conduit like a mutual fund. Of that 15.1% sub-group, 29.2% (or 4.41% of all households) are invested in only a single stock, 53.0% (or 8.00% […]

When we were down in Florida, our friend, Karen, had some butternut squash puree in the refrigerator the chef, Sebastian, had left for her and Blake as he didn’t need it. She used it to make herself a butternut squash soup for lunch one day after coming back from a run. I hadn’t thought much […]

Read More from Joshua …

In addition to the posts on this personal blog, you can read more of my investing, finance, accounting, and portfolio management articles at Investing for Beginners over at About.com, where I've written since 2001.

Read Posts By Date

Important Consumer Disclosures

To help offset bandwidth costs and other expenses of running a successful blog, the site now features VigLink affiliate referrals that convert words into affiliate links that pay us for the transaction. For more information, or if you run a website and want to sign up yourself, visit VigLink.